alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
LightPath Technologies, Inc. 8-K


Exhibit 10.3


AFFIRMATION OF GUARANTEE


This AFFIRMATION
OF GUARANTEE is made as of December 21, 2016 (“Affirmation”), by the undersigned guarantor (“Guarantor”)
for the benefit of AVIDBANK (“Bank”).


RECITALS


Bank and Lightpath
Technologies, Inc. (“Borrower”) are parties to that Amended and
Restated Loan and Security Agreement dated as of December 23, 2014 and as amended from time to time (the “Agreement”).
In connection therewith, Guarantor executed for the benefit of Bank an Unconditional Guaranty dated as of September 30, 2013 (the
“Guarantee”). Borrower and Bank propose to enter into an amendment and restatement of the Agreement on even
date herewith (the “Restated Loan Agreement”), provided, among other things, that Guarantor consents to the
Restated Loan Agreement and agrees that the Guarantee will remain effective.


AGREEMENT


NOW, THEREFORE,
Guarantor agrees as follows:


1.       


Guarantor consents
to the execution, delivery and performance by Borrower of the Restated Loan Agreement and the documents and instruments executed
in connection therewith.


2.       


Guarantor confirms
that, as of the date hereof, Guarantor has no defenses against its obligations under the Guarantee.


3.       


The Guarantee is and
shall remain in full force and effect with respect to Borrower’s Obligations (as defined in the Restated Loan Agreement)
and otherwise and hereby is ratified and confirmed in all respects.


4.       


Unless otherwise defined,
all capitalized terms in this Affirmation shall be as defined in the Guarantee.


5.       


In the event that any
signature is delivered by facsimile transmission or by e-mail delivery of a “.pdf” format data file, such signature
shall create a valid and binding obligation of the party executing (or on whose behalf such signature is executed) with the same
force and effect as if such facsimile or “.pdf” signature page were an original hereof.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned has executed this Affirmation of Guaranty as of the first date above written.


	 	GUARANTOR:
	 	 
	 	GELTECH INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ J. James Gaynor
	 	 	 
		Name:	J. James Gaynor
	 	 	 
	 	Title:	Chief Executive Officer
#### Belmonte *v.*Connor, Appellant.

*Workmen’s compensation*— Finding *of fact by referee and compensation board*— Gonclusiveness—Review *by court.*

A finding by the referee and the compensation board that a workman at the time he was killed was an employee and not an independent contractor is conclusive and not reviewable by the court on appeal.

Argued Jan. 9, 1919.

Appeal, No. 10, Jan. T., 1919, by defendant, from judgment of O. P. No. 2, Philadel*471phia Co., Dec. T., 1917, No. 1030, dismissing appeal from an award of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, which affirmed the award made by the referee, in the case of Catarina Belmonte v. Thomas Connor.

Before Brown, C. J., Stewart, Moschzisker, Frazer, Walling, Simpson and Kephart, JJ.

Affirmed.

Appeal from award of compensation board.

The referee found that plaintiff’s husband was an employee at the time he was injured and made an award of compensation, which was affirmed by the compensation board. The court affirmed the award. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was dismissing exceptions to the decision of the compensation board.

*William G. Wright,*with him *R. P. F. Maxwell,*for appellant.

The only issue before the referee at the hearing was whether the decedent was an employee of the defendant: Harrison v. Collins, 86 Pa. 153; Thomas v. Altoona, etc., R. R., 191 Pa. 361; Miller y. Merritt, 211 Pa. 127.

The burden of proof to establish this issue rested upon the claimant: Hunt v. Penna. R. R., 51 Pa. 475; Mc-Caullough y. Shoneman, 105 Pa. 169; Connor y. Penna. R. R. Co., 24 Pa. Superior Ct. 241.

The jurisdiction of this court is merely to “inspect the record, to ascertain whether the judgment in question is in conformity therewith”: McCauley v. Imperial Woolen Co., 261 Pa. 312.

The opinion of the board affirming the referee could not add anything to the referee’s findings and opinion: McCauley v. Imperial Woolen Co., 261 Pa. 312.

*Owen J. Roberts,*with him *Francis S. Goglia,*for appellee.

This court will not go beyond the record: Me*472Cauley v. Imperial Woolen Co., 261 Pa. 312; Messinger v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., 261 Pa. 336.

February 17, 1919:

It affirmatively appears in the referee’s findings that defendant had the right to direct the details of the work: Smith v. State Workmen’s Insurance Fund, 262 Pa. 251.

Per Curiam,

The only question before the referee and the compensation board, which was one of fact, was as to the relation which the husband of the appellee sustained to the appellant at the time he was killed. The finding of the board was that he was an employee, and not an independent contractor, as the defendant contended. This finding is conclusive: Messinger v. Lehigh Valley E. B. Co., 261 Pa. 336.

Appeal dismissed and award affirmed.
Exhibit






AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED AND RESTATED
EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN FOR EXECUTIVE EMPLOYEES OF AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED AND SUBSIDIARIES


February 1, 2016


This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Equity Incentive Plan for Executive Employees of Avago Technologies Limited and Subsidiaries, as amended (as amended, the “Plan”) is effective as of the date first set forth above, such amendment being approved by the Board of Directors of Broadcom Limited (the “Company”) pursuant to Section 11 of the Plan. The Plan is hereby amended as follows:


		
	1.
	The reference to “Avago Technologies Limited, a company organized under the laws of Singapore” in Section 1(a) of the Plan shall be deleted and replaced with “Broadcom Limited, a limited company incorporated under the Republic of Singapore.”




		
	2.
	All references in the Plan to the “Company” or “Avago Technologies Limited” shall refer to the Company.




		
	3.
	All references to “ordinary shares,” “Shares,” or other similar terms in the Plan shall refer to the ordinary shares of the Company.




		
	4.
	Except as provided in this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.












*    *    *    *    *
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

and Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

I, Dennis Calvert, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of BioLargo, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.
The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.



|                   |  |     |  |                        
|------------------ |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: May 18, 2007 |  | By: |  | /s/ Dennis Calvert     
|                   |  |     |  | Dennis Calvert         
|                   |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer
*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge

panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material

assistance in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th

Cir. R. 34.1 (G). The cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

FEB 24 2000

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

vs.

LISA DENNY DEMEREE,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 99-5007

(D.C. No. 96-CR-151-H)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, KELLY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.**

Lisa Denny Demeree, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals from the denial

of her motions to stay: (1) the payment of fines during her direct appeal; and (2)

the destruction and distribution of all items taken under search warrants in her

case. R. docs. 279, 280. The district court ordered Ms. Demeree to submit a

supplemental brief stating the special circumstances which would justify a stay of
- 2 -

the payment of fines. The court denied the motion for a stay of the destruction of

items based on the government’s assertion that (a) all documents had been turned

over to Ms. Demeree and (b) the government would maintain all the items during

the pendency of the direct appeal. App. Ex. D. Ms. Demeree failed to timely file

supplemental briefs and the district court denied her motion to stay the payment

of fines. R. doc. 302. This appeal followed. 

This court subsequently entered an order and judgment affirming Ms.

Demeree’s conviction on direct appeal. United States v. Demeree, Nos. 97-5211,

97-5212, 1999 WL 92262 (10th Cir. Feb. 24, 1999). That decision renders Ms.

Demeree’s current appeal moot because the motions she brought only requested a

stay during the pendency of her direct appeal. See Phelps v. Hamilton, 122 F.3d

1309, 1326 (10th Cir. 1997) (“[I]f an event occurs while a case is pending on

appeal that makes it impossible for the court to grant any effectual relief whatever

to a prevailing party, the appeal must be dismissed.”) (citation and internal

quotations omitted). 

Ms. Demeree asserts that her appeal is not moot because the government

has failed to produce relevant documents and property which are necessary for a

habeas corpus motion. She requests an order to the United States Attorney to

produce these items. This request should be made to the district court and is not

properly raised for the first time on appeal.
- 3 -

Appeal DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
# C_2020297EN.01001602.xml

| 7.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 297/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 16 July 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães — Portugal) — MH, NI v OJ, Novo Banco SA

(Case C-253/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Insolvency proceedings - Regulation (UE) 2015/848 - Article 3 - International jurisdiction - Centre of a debtor’s main interests - Individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity - Rebuttable presumption that the centre of that person’s main interests is his or her habitual residence - Rebuttal of the presumption - Situation in which the debtor’s sole immovable asset is located outside the Member State of habitual residence)

(2020/C 297/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: MH, NI

Defendants: OJ, Novo Banco SA

Operative part of the judgment

The first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption established in that provision for determining international jurisdiction for the purposes of opening insolvency proceedings, according to which the centre of the main interests of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity is his or her habitual residence, is not rebutted solely because the only immovable property of that person is located outside the Member State of habitual residence.

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000             JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1999             JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-1999             OCT-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0              13,052,679
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0              19,984,565
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                (749,954)
<INVENTORY>                                          0              70,335,820
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0             104,950,584
<PP&E>                                               0              44,057,394
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0             (20,091,545)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0             130,470,915
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0              83,986,663
<BONDS>                                              0              52,248,247
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                  91,709
<OTHER-SE>                                           0              34,262,909
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0              34,354,618
<SALES>                                     47,696,061             133,049,539
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                       27,872,043              78,818,589
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,502,283               5,070,340
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,573,267               1,170,261
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          5,573,267               1,170,261
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 5,573,267               1,170,261
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.64                    0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.47                    0.12


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1 Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) Certification President and Chief Executive Officer I, John J. Limbert, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CSB
Bancorp, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect
to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
financial information included in this report, fairly present in all
material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,
or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be
designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
within those entities, particularly during the period in which
this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants
disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this
report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions): 17.




---



##### 



a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over
financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
management or other employees who have a significant role in
the registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: May 14, 2004
    
    /s/ John J. Limbert
John J. Limbert
President and
Chief Executive Officer
 18.
February 8, 1999

21258

#### Inthisane v. Soldner

Affirmed
- 1

- 

### S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

**C O U R T O F A P P E A L S**

COMERICA BANK,

Plaintiff

- Appellee, UNPUBLISHED July 31 , 2018

v No. 336637

Oakland Circuit Court MICHAEL KELMAN, LC No. 2012

- 142821

- CK

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

BIRMINGHAM BLOOMFIELD CREDIT UNION,

Garnishee Defendant

- Appellee.

Before: C AMERON

, P .J., and J ANSEN and O’C ONNELL , JJ.

J ANSEN

, J

. ( concurring in part and dissenting in part ).

To the extent that the majority concludes that any disability payments deposited into Kelman’s BBCU account are exempt under MCL 600.6023(1)(f), I agree. However, I write separately because my review of the record did not yield any documentary evidence su pporting Kelman’s contention that his disability payments were de posited into his BBCU account. Because I do not agree that remand is necessary, and I respectfully dissent.

As the party asserting the exemption, Kelman bore the burden of proving that he was receiving disability payments, and that those disability payments were being deposited into the

BBCU account. Kelman attached to his brief in support of his objection to the writ of garnishment the following: t he consent judgment against him; the r equ est and writ for garnishment; the garnishee d isclosure; his original objection; the spousal support order from his divorce; and case law he argued supported his position. What Kelman did not submit was documentation verifying that he was receiving disabil ity payments, and that those payments were being deposited into the BBCU account. In my view, Kelman has failed to support his claim that

h e is entitled to an exemption under MCL 600.6023(1)(f).

If no evidence was presented to support Kelman’s contenti on that he had received disability payments to the BBCU account that were exempt, the trial court remains unable to make factual findings regarding how much of the BBCU account balance is exempt from- 2

- garnishment under MCL 600.6023(1)(f). By remanding to t he trial court to make factual findings regarding what amount of the BBCU account reflects disability payments, the majority allows Kelman to take another bite of the apple, sort to speak. I do not find remand to be appropriate on this record

. Accordingly, I would affirm.

/s/ Kathleen Jansen
Riverside

County

La Paz

County

Yuma

County

Imperial

County

Gila

County

Maricopa

County

Pima

County

Pinal

County

Yavapai

County

California

Arizona

USDA APHIS

3640 E. Wier Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85040

Data Source:

USDA, APHIS, PPQ

These data, and all the information contained therein, have been collected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), or by its cooperators on APHIS’ behalf, for restricted government purposes only and is

the sole property of APHIS. See full disclaimer: https://www.aphis.usda.gov/help/data-disclaimer

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

2023 Karnal Bunt Regulated Areas

State Boundary

County Boundary

Regulated Areas

0 10 20 30 40 50

Miles

0 10 20 30 40 50

Kilometers

Date Created:

January 23, 2023

[

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Regulated Areas

 Arizona

 “Regulated Area” is an area regulated by USDA for Karnal Bunt that is a

distinct, definable, commercial wheat production area that includes at least one

field that tested positive for bunted kernels and includes the surrounding 3 miles.

Maricopa 782 30,787

Pinal 509 23,496

Total 1,291 54,283

County Fields Field Acres